Florida: Stand Your Ground Under Attack from the Left Flank

[Colonel Dan, SASS #24025]

Florida’s “Stand your Ground” Law is under attack from the left flank.

In short, this law states that Floridians have no duty to retreat from imminent threat. We are not
required to cower in the corner, turn tail and run for our lives OR readily SURRENDER to thugs that confront us.

Now what can you imagine is or can be the objection to this? Eric Holder today in Orlando seems to have formally launched the war against law abiding citizens! The most vocal faction raising concerns since this law was passed a few years ago seems to be those representing or defending the thugs who desire easier more vulnerable targets.

Since Florida passed concealed carry in 1987 and “stand your ground” just several years back,crime has…are you ready for this….decreased. No surprise there. Thugs know we may be carrying and have the state backing of our right to self defense. Not a good environment for the thug’s chosen
profession.

Below is an exact extract of the law. You tell me what’s wrong with this law? I can’t find anything!

We must fight this infringement in every state where similar laws are under attack!

Immediately below is the essence of the law in question.

Use of force in defense of person.—

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;

Below is the law in its entirety.

Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Statute

Self-Defense, Justifiable Use of Force, and Prosecutorial Immunity

Shown below is the text of the statute for Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law. For an in-depth analysis of the law, please visit our Florida Stand Your Ground discussion page.

The 2011 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI

CRIMES

Chapter 776

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the
use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

b The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

c The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground
and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary todo so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it,
including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

b “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

c “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force,
unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it
determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the
court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

b In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant
continues or resumes the use of force.

 

 

[Yellowhouse Sam # 25171]

Actually, the fiasco has little to do with civil rights and has everything to do with stand your ground, self defense, and concealed carry. Trayvon is just the vehicle.

[Colonel Dan, SASS #24025]

It all comes under the philosophy of "Never let a crisis go to waste!"

[Subdeacon Joe]

Kind of hard to flee when you are on your back being beaten. Not much choice there but to "stand your ground."

[Chantry]

The state of Florida already "reviewed" the law and nothing changed.

 

The federal government is just saying what it's base wants to hear. I don't expect anything to change.

[Colonel Dan, SASS #24025]

Keep in mind that there 25 other states that have similar laws that will be coming under the same attack at the Federal level. This fight isn't restricted to Florida only.

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

Keep in mind that there 25 other states that have similar laws that will be coming under the same attack at the Federal level. This fight isn't restricted to Florida only.

 

But a black punk kid didn't get killed in some other state that drew national attention.

Naturally the obummer and his minions are concentrating on the most visible state first attempting to roll all this up into yet another go at our 2nd Amendment rights.

[Dusty Balz, SASS#46599]

Why isn't that hack in jail ?

[Lazarus Longshot, SASS #44254 Life]

Now Stevie Wonder is saying he won't perform in Florida until the Stand Your Ground law is repealed. The SYG law had NOTHING to do with Martin's death. Don't these people have an understanding of the English language?

[Middlefork Bob, SASS #53945]

Actually, the fiasco has little to do with civil rights and has everything to do with stand your ground, self defense, and concealed carry. Trayvon is just the vehicle.

 

BINGO!!!

[Colonel Dan, SASS #24025]

Yep, "Never let a crisis go to waste!". Whether it be a real crisis or a concocted one makes no difference.

[Middlefork Bob, SASS #53945]

They (the media and our current government) want to condition people to not defend themselves and that if you do there will be hell to pay. This will make it easier to take what you have for the good of all. You have no right to defend yourself, the state will defend you. You have no right to personal property the state will provide you with what you need to survive. Communist doctrine plain and simple.

[Virgil Ray Hality, SASS# 37355]

Now Stevie Wonder is saying he won't perform in Florida until the Stand Your Ground law is repealed. The SYG law had NOTHING to do with Martin's death. Don't these people have an understanding of the English language?

 

No big loss. I doubt he will be missed. Last time I saw him on TV his voice was pathetic. He is already too old to sing.

[Badlands Beady]

 

They (the media and our current government) want to condition people to not defend themselves

If that bit about the media were true, would we even know about the case? At bottom, it's just another murder case, and the only reason it got to be so prominent was that CNN (especially) needed another big story to drag out. Now that the case is essentially over, they're dragging out the jury stories, and the commentary about the jury stories, and... Come the next Big Thing) the Martin-Zimmerman case will be crowded off the stage and won't even be mentioned.

 

But I'm curious: What, specifically, does Stand Your Ground have to do with the 2nd Amendment? Yes, I know that it can be easier to SYG if you have a gun, but it's just as easy to run away if you have a gun. And you don't necessarily need a gun to SYG (Remember the scene in Crocodile Dundee? "That's not a knife; *this* is a knife!"). I was just over at the NRA site, and even *they* don't seem to have taken up this issue. Or is this another "slippery slope?" "First, SYG, then your guns!"

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

Florida’s “Stand your Ground” Law is under attack from the left flank.

 

 

In short, this law states that Floridians have no duty to retreat from imminent threat. We are not

required to cower in the corner, turn tail and run for our lives OR readily SURRENDER to thugs that confront us.

 

Now what can you imagine is or can be the objection to this? Eric Holder today in Orlando seems to have formally launched the war against law abiding citizens! The most vocal faction raising concerns since this law was passed a few years ago seems to be those representing or defending the thugs who desire easier more vulnerable targets.

 

Since Florida passed concealed carry in 1987 and “stand your ground” just several years back,crime has…are you ready for this….decreased. No surprise there. Thugs know we may be carrying and have the state backing of our right to self defense. Not a good environment for the thug’s chosen

profession.

 

Below is an exact extract of the law. You tell me what’s wrong with this law? I can’t find anything!

 

 

We must fight this infringement in every state where similar laws are under attack!

 

 

Immediately below is the essence of the law in question.

 

 

Use of force in defense of person.—

 

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

 

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;

 

Below is the law in its entirety.

 

Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Statute

 

 

 

Self-Defense, Justifiable Use of Force, and Prosecutorial Immunity

 

Shown below is the text of the statute for Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law. For an in-depth analysis of the law, please visit our Florida Stand Your Ground discussion page.

 

 

The 2011 Florida Statutes

 

 

Title XLVI

 

CRIMES

 

Chapter 776

 

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

 

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—

 

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the

use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

 

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

 

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

 

 

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

 

 

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

 

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

 

 

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

 

b The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

 

 

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

 

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

 

The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

 

c The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

 

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

 

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground

and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary todo so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

 

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

 

(5) As used in this section, the term:

 

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it,

including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

 

b “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

 

c “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

 

 

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

 

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force,

unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

 

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it

determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

 

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the

court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

 

 

History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27

 

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—

 

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

 

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

 

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

 

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

 

b In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant

continues or resumes the use of force.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The left continues to attack and erode the ability of folks wishing to be able to protect themselves....gun owners of that political party should be ashamed for supporting them.

 

GG ~

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

 

If that bit about the media were true, would we even know about the case? At bottom, it's just another murder case, and the only reason it got to be so prominent was that CNN (especially) needed another big story to drag out. Now that the case is essentially over, they're dragging out the jury stories, and the commentary about the jury stories, and... Come the next Big Thing) the Martin-Zimmerman case will be crowded off the stage and won't even be mentioned.

 

But I'm curious: What, specifically, does Stand Your Ground have to do with the 2nd Amendment? Yes, I know that it can be easier to SYG if you have a gun, but it's just as easy to run away if you have a gun. And you don't necessarily need a gun to SYG (Remember the scene in Crocodile Dundee? "That's not a knife; *this* is a knife!"). I was just over at the NRA site, and even *they* don't seem to have taken up this issue. Or is this another "slippery slope?" "First, SYG, then your guns!"

 

Huh? gee - maybe self defense??? Must be nice living in a world where one can just 'run away'....

 

GG ~

[Colonel Dan, SASS #24025]

Badlands asked: "What, specifically, does Stand Your Ground have to do with the 2nd Amendment?"

 

The anti gun element is using this here in Florida as an opening to try and force stricter gun laws--they have been pretty open about it. They want to package all this together using the Zimmerman case as the emotional catalyst i.e. excuse, even though SYG was never part of the Zimmerman trial. In any case, you can bet this is and will be tied to gun legislation down the road in more states than just Florida.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

Badlands asked: "What, specifically, does Stand Your Ground have to do with the 2nd Amendment?"

 

The anti gun element is using this here in Florida as an opening to try and force stricter gun laws--they have been pretty open about it. They want to package all this together using the Zimmerman case as the emotional catalyst i.e. excuse, even though SYG was never part of the Zimmerman trial. In any case, you can bet this is and will be tied to gun legislation down the road in more states than just Florida.

 

...yup

 

GG ~

[Virgil Ray Hality, SASS# 37355]

And here is PA, the media started talkin up saying that PA's ;aw was modeled after the FL law. BTW, we don't have an SYG law in PA. The law in PA is quite specific and it is a castle doctrine which some left wing pansy tried to have removed from the books to model it after the NYS law where you must run away. Shameful, just shameful.